DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Claims 20-21 have been withdrawn and claims 1-19 and 22 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.10-11 of the amendment and paragraphs No. 6, 14-17 of the Declaration of Dr. Clifford Yahnke filed 11/12/2025, the Applicant argues that secondary reference Kim does not enable the inactivation of one or more lipid-enveloped viruses because Kim fails to provide parameters such as irradiance levels, exposure times, or dosage requirements for viral inactivation and also does not mention whether or not exogeneous photosensitizers are required (and thus, there is no enabling disclosure of the inactivation of lipid-enveloped viruses in an environment).
The instant arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While it is true that Kim does not disclose such critical parameters, Hawkins anticipates these critical parameters and is thus enabling as to how one of ordinary skill would apply this method. Kim is merely being utilized to perform sterilization protocols of UV light on coronaviruses, and it would have been obvious to try the Hawkins method/protocol onto Kim’s teaching of a coronavirus.
Specifically, Declaration paragraph No. 4 mentions a reference establishing a state of the art (see “Rathnasinghe, R., Jangra….”) stating that “it was expected that efficient decontamination of viruses (both enveloped and non-enveloped) required the addition of exogenous photosensitizers” (2nd to last paragraph of Introduction section). Given the lack of distinction between a non-enveloped virus and an enveloped one in regards to the experimental method for testing such disinfection capability at 405 nm, similarly there would not have been a method/protocol difference when applying Hawkins’ method/protocol onto Kim’s target of coronaviruses. In fact, one could argue that the absence of critical parameters in the Kim reference would make the application of Hawkins’ method onto Kim’s target organism much more obvious rather than if Kim did teach non-matching parameter values.
Applicant asserts that Tomb et al. (see paragraph No. 6 of Declaration) is claimed to have required exogeneous photosensitizers. However, Examiner believes that Tomb teaches effective-level inactivation of a non-enveloped lipid virus without photosensitizers (which include exogeneous ones) at 405nm but at a much higher irradiance level (155.8 W/cm2). Specifically, Tomb et al. recites “Low sensitivity of FCV in MM was anticipated due to the absence of porphyrins in the viral structure, coupled with the fact that MM does not contain any photosensitive substances which absorb light at 405 nm, suggesting that viral inactivation, in this case, is due to a differing mechanism” (3rd paragraph of Discussion section).
Furthermore, in the arguments presented by p.12 of the amendment and paragraphs No. 10-11 of the Declaration, the Applicant argues the claimed method of claims 1 and 22 provides an unexpected result, as the prior art teaches that viral inactivation at 405 nm of lipid-enveloped viruses require high irradiance levels, whereas Applicant is making the case that a low irradiance value (as stated in claims 1 and 22) is sufficient (yielding the unexpected result of significantly reduced pathogen level). Thus, the combination of Hawkins and Kim lack this unexpected differential response between lipid-enveloped and non-enveloped viruses, or any motivation to specifically target lipid-enveloped viruses for 405 nm light treatment "without an exogenous photosensitizer".
The instant arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The lack of distinction between a non-enveloped virus and an enveloped one in regards to an experimental method for testing such disinfection capability at 405 nm (recited by “Rathnasinghe, R., Jangra….”) implies that utilizing Hawkins’ method onto a lipid-enveloped virus (i.e., coronavirus, suggested by Kim) would stay the same, including all critical parameters disclosed by Hawkins. Tomb et al. also recites that viral inactivation of lipid-enveloped viruses do not require photosensitizers (endogenous or exogenous, see 3rd paragraph of Discussion section). Thus, the combination of Hawkins and Kim would not have changed any of Hawkins’ critical parameters, including the relatively low irradiance level parameter. Because the irradiance parameter anticipated by Hawkins is not unexpected/nonobvious, the resulting pathogen reduction level would also not be unexpected.
Assuming arguendo that the Yahnke declaration is sufficient to establish unexpected results, The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11/12/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 22 based upon Hawkins in view of Kim as set forth in the last Office action because the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
MPEP § 716.02(d) provides: “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the 'objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In this case, the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of claims 1 and 22.
There is no mention of the deemed critical parameters (e.g., pathogen reduction level, type of media, density of pathogens) and/or the specific type of lipid-enveloped virus (Applicant claims the entire umbrella of lipid-enveloped viruses rather than, for example, the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A viruses that Applicant’s experimental results are based off of) within claims 1 or 22.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. Per the applicant’s specification, the following limitations will be interpreted as follows:
In claim 4, “means for maintaining a junction temperature” will be interpreted as “one or more heat sinks, one or more metallic bands, spreading heat to printed circuit boards coupled to the LEDs, a constant-current driver topology, a thermal feedback system to one or more drivers (that power the LEDs) via NTC thermistor, or other means that reduce LED drive current at sensed elevated temperatures” as stated in [0121], or “one or more heat sinks and/or may involve utilizing a switching circuit that, when a lighting fixture that utilizes two light-emitting devices is employed, prevents the two circuits for the light-emitting devices from being energized at the same time during use," and that "[i]n some cases, a thermal cutoff may be added to prevent the lighting fixture(s) from overheating” as stated in [0186].
In claim 13, “means for creating air convection proximate to the housing” will be interpreted as “one or more fans (part of or separate from the lighting device 104), one or more heat sinks, one or more channels formed in the lighting device 104, or other means” as stated in [0121], or an HVAC unit that provides, to a room, air that is "continuously circulated” as stated in [0173].
In claim 14, “means for directing the light provided by the at least one lighting element” will be interpreted as “one or more reflectors, one or more lenses, one or more diffusers, and/or one or more other components” as stated in [0121], or “one or more reflectors, one or more diffusers, and one or more lenses positioned within or outside of the lighting fixtures” as stated in [0186].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US 20190083667 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (US 10894104 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hawkins teaches a method of inactivating one or more viruses in an environment without a photosensitizer ([0064], to which the pathogens include “viruses, bacteria, and fungi”, [0003]), the method comprising: providing light from at least one lighting element of a lighting device installed in the environment (lighting device 104, Fig. 2, with light emitting elements, [0005]), the at least one lighting element configured to provide light toward a target area in the environment (“the lighting device includes a housing, one or more light-emitting elements arranged in the housing and comprising one or more light-emitting diodes”, and “means for directing the combined visible light to the air in the environment”, [0005]), the provided light having at least a virus-inactivating first component in a first range of wavelengths of 400 nanometers to 420 nanometers (“the lighting device 104 provides or delivers a wavelength in the range between 400 nm and 420 nm, e.g., about 405 nm”, [0065]), wherein the virus-inactivating first component of light produces an irradiance of at least 0.01 mW/cm2 and not more than 1.0 mW/cm2 as measured at a surface in the target area that is unshielded from the lighting device and located at a distance of 1.5 meters from an external-most luminous surface of the lighting device (“the minimum integrated irradiance of the disinfecting light provided by the lighting device 104, which in this example is measured from any exposed surface or unshielded point (e.g., air) in the environment 100 that is 1.5 m from any point on any external-most luminous surface 102 of the lighting device 104… be equal to 0.02 mW/cm2… 1.00 mW/cm2”, [0065]), wherein providing the light causes the one or more pathogens to be inactivated, and wherein the one or more pathogens are inactivated without using an exogenous photosensitizer to cause inactivation of the one or more lipid-enveloped viruses ([0064], and title of Hawkins is stated as “LIGHTING DEVICE THAT DEACTIVATES DANGEROUS PATHOGENS”, to which the pathogens include “viruses, bacteria, and fungi”, [0003]).
Hawkins, however, fails to teach a method of inactivating one or more lipid-enveloped viruses in an environment.
Kim teaches an LED lighting device (sterilizing device 1, Fig. 1) having a light emitter (20, Fig. 1) for emission of 405 nm visible light in order to sterilize “various microbes, bacteria, viruses, and the like, such as… Coronavirus” (see col. 6, lines 48-55).
Hawkins and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sterilizing surfaces/environments with visible light at about 405 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of inactivating pathogens in an environment via a 405 nm light source as taught by Hawkins by incorporating a method to not only inactivate pathogens, but also a lipid-enveloped virus (e.g., coronavirus) within an environment as taught by Kim in order to provide a sterilizing effect to an abundance of pathogens, lipid-enveloped viruses included (Kim, col. 6, lines 48-55).
Regarding claim 2, Hawkins teaches wherein the irradiance is at least 0.035 mW/cm2 and not more than 0.6 mW/cm2 at the surface in the target area that is unshielded from the lighting device and located at a distance of 1.5 meters from an external-most luminous surface of the lighting device (“the minimum integrated irradiance of the disinfecting light provided by the lighting device 104, which in this example is measured from any exposed surface or unshielded point (e.g., air) in the environment 100 that is 1.5 m from any point on any external-most luminous surface 102 of the lighting device 104… be equal to 0.05 mW/cm2… 0.60mW/cm2”, [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Hawkins teaches wherein the at least one lighting element comprises at least one light-emitting diode (“the lighting device 104 includes one or more light-emitting elements, e.g., light-emitting diodes”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Hawkins teaches wherein the light is provided from the lighting device that further comprises a means for maintaining a junction temperature of the at least one LED below a maximum operating temperature of the at least one LED (“when LEDs are employed in the lighting device, the lighting device 104 can include a means for maintaining a junction temperature of the LEDs below a maximum operating temperature of the LEDs… for example, include one or more heat sinks”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Hawkins teaches wherein the light is provided from the at least one lighting element that comprises: one or more first light-emitting elements configured to emit the virus-inactivating first component of the light (“LEDs; wherein at least a first component of the light emitted by the one or more LEDs travels through the one or more light converting phosphor coatings without alteration”, [0005], where “each lighting element 612 is configured to provide light, at least a first component of the light, provided by the respective LED 656, having a wavelength of between 400 nm and 420 nm”, Fig. 10B and [0104]); and one or more second light-emitting elements configured to emit a second component of the provided light (“and at least a second component of light emitted by the one or more LEDs is converted by the one or more light converting phosphor coatings into light having a wavelength of greater than 500 nm”, [0005]), such that providing light from the at least one lighting element comprises providing a combined light formed by the first component of light in combination with the second component of light (“wherein the first component of the light emitted by the one or more LEDs and the second component of light emitted by the one or more LEDs mix to form a combined light”, [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Hawkins teaches wherein the combined light is white light having u', v' coordinates on the 1976 CIE Chromaticity Diagram (Fig. 3A) that lie within an area that is bounded (i) vertically between .035 Duv below and .035 Duv above a planckian locus defined by the ANSI C78.377-2015 color standard (“The ANSI C78.377-2015 color standard… is generally defined by the planckian locus 105… white light may, for example, lie on a curve 106A that is 0.035 Duv above the planckian locus 105, on a curve 106B that is 0.035 Duv below (−0.035 Duv) the planckian locus 105”, [0067] and Fig. 3A-3B), and (ii) horizontally between a correlated color temperature (CCT) isoline of between approximately 1500K and 7000K (“horizontally between a color temperature isoline of between approximately 1500K and 7000K”, [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Hawkins teaches wherein the area is bounded vertically between .007 Duv below and .007 Duv above the planckian locus (“0.007 Duv above the planckian locus 105 and a curve 109B that is 0.007 Duv below (−0.007 Duv) the planckian locus 105”, [0067] and Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 8, Hawkins teaches wherein the at least one lighting element comprises: one or more light-emitting elements configured to emit the virus-inactivating first component of the light (“each lighting element 612 is configured to provide light, at least a first component of the light, provided by the respective LED 656, having a wavelength of between 400 nm and 420 nm”, Fig. 10B and [0104]); and one or more light-converting elements arranged with respect to the one or more light- emitting elements such that (1) a first portion of the virus-inactivating first component of the light is not altered by the one or more light-converting elements (“at least a first portion or component 700 (and in FIG. 10D, multiple components 700) of the disinfecting light emitted by each LED 656 travels or passes through the respective light-converting element 657 without alteration”, Fig. 10B and [0104]), and (2) a second portion of the virus-inactivating first component of the light passes through the one or more light-converting elements to produce a second component of the provided light, the second component having a wavelength of greater than 420 nm (“while at least a second portion or component 704 (and in FIG. 10D, multiple components 704) of the disinfecting light emitted by each LED 656 is (are) converted by the respective light-converting element 657 into light having a wavelength of greater than 420 nm”, [0104] and Fig. 10B), such that providing light from the at least one lighting element comprises providing a combined light formed by the first component of light in combination with the second component of light (“wherein the first component of the light emitted by the one or more LEDs and the second component of light emitted by the one or more LEDs mix to form a combined light”, [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Hawkins teaches wherein the combined light is white light having u', v' coordinates on the 1976 CIE Chromaticity Diagram (Fig. 3A) that lie within an area that is bounded (i) vertically between .035 Duv below and .035 Duv above a planckian locus defined by the ANSI C78.377-2015 color standard (“The ANSI C78.377-2015 color standard… is generally defined by the planckian locus 105… white light may, for example, lie on a curve 106A that is 0.035 Duv above the planckian locus 105, on a curve 106B that is 0.035 Duv below (−0.035 Duv) the planckian locus 105”, [0067] and Fig. 3A-3B), and (ii) horizontally between a correlated color temperature (CCT) isoline of between approximately 1500K and 7000K (“horizontally between a color temperature isoline of between approximately 1500K and 7000K”, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, Hawkins teaches wherein the area is bounded vertically between .007 Duv below and .007 Duv above the planckian locus (“0.007 Duv above the planckian locus 105 and a curve 109B that is 0.007 Duv below (−0.007 Duv) the planckian locus 105”, [0067] and Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 11, Hawkins teaches wherein the one or more light-converting elements include one or more phosphors (“the light-converting element 657, which may for example be a phosphor element such as a phosphor or a substrate infused with phosphor, covers or coats the LED 656”, [0103] and Fig. 10D).
Regarding claim 12, Hawkins teaches wherein the at least one lighting element is contained within a housing (“the lighting device includes a housing”, [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Hawkins teaches wherein the lighting device further comprises means for creating air convection proximate to the housing (“additional air convection may be created by incorporating one or more fans, one or more heat sinks, and/or one or more other physical means for creating additional air convection into or onto the lighting device 1502”, Fig. 13 and [0120]).
Regarding claim 14, Hawkins teaches wherein the lighting device further comprises means for directing the light provided by the at least one lighting element (“the lighting device 104 optionally includes means for directing the emitted light. The means for directing the emitted light may, for example, include one or more reflectors, one or more lenses, one or more diffusers, and/or one or more other components”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 15, Hawkins teaches wherein a radiometric power of the provided light at 20 degrees from a center axis of light distribution is equal to 50% of a radiometric power at the center axis of light distribution of the provided light, wherein the radiometric power at 20 degrees and the radiometric power at the center axis are measured at equal distances from the at least one lighting element (see claim 5 of Hawkins).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the light provided by the at least one light-emitting element has a luminous flux above a cone angled downward from the lighting device at 60 degrees circumferentially around nadir of the lighting device (Fig. 15A and [0124], where “angle θ equal to 20 or 30 degrees from the center axis 1104”, [0124], equating to 40 or 60 degrees circumferentially), the luminous flux being greater than 15% of a total luminous flux of the light provided by the at least one lighting element (“the radiometric power along a line 1108 oriented at an angle θ from the center axis 1104 is equal to 50% of the maximum radiometric power value”, [0124]).
Regarding claim 17, Hawkins teaches wherein the light is provided from the at least one lighting element (lighting devices 58, Fig. 1) based upon instructions from a controller (central control module 76, Fig. 1) configured to control the at least one lighting element responsive to a control signal received from a user of the lighting device (client devices 70, Fig. 1, where “client device(s) 70 may transmit, via the network(s) 74, the server 66, and the bridge device(s) 62, any updated light settings to the lighting devices 58”, [0061]) or from a central controller located remotely from the lighting device (server 66 having central control module 76, Fig. 1, “can be located remotely (e.g., in the “cloud”) from the lighting devices 58”, [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, Hawkins teaches wherein the light is provided over an operating mode of 24 hours over which the lighting device is configured to irradiate the target area (“providing doses of light sufficient to deactivate dangerous pathogens (e.g., MRSA bacteria) throughout a volumetric space (e.g., the environment 100) over a period of time (e.g., 24 hours)”, Fig. 11 and [0131]).
Regarding claim 19, Hawkins teaches wherein the light is provided over an operating mode of eight hours over which the lighting device is configured to irradiate the target area (“like the desired illuminance level, this will vary depending upon the application, but may be 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, 12 hours”, Fig. 11 and [0132]).
Regarding claim 22, Hawkins teaches a method of inactivating one or more viruses in an environment without an exogenous photosensitizer ([0064], to which the pathogens include “viruses, bacteria, and fungi”, [0003]), the method comprising: providing light from at least one lighting element of a lighting device installed in the environment (lighting device 104, Fig. 2, applied to Fig. 4A-4C on lighting fixture 200, with light emitting elements 212, Fig. 4B), the at least one lighting element configured to provide light toward a target area in the environment (lighting elements 212, Fig. 4B), the provided light having at least a virus-inactivating first component in a first range of wavelengths of 400 nanometers to 420 nanometers (“the lighting device 104 provides or delivers a wavelength in the range between 400 nm and 420 nm, e.g., about 405 nm”, [0065]), wherein the virus-inactivating first component of light produces an irradiance of at least 0.0135 mW/cm2 as measured at a surface in the target area that is unshielded from the lighting device and located at a distance of 1.5 meters from an external-most luminous surface of the lighting device (“the minimum integrated irradiance of the disinfecting light provided by the lighting device 104, which in this example is measured from any exposed surface or unshielded point (e.g., air) in the environment 100 that is 1.5 m from any point on any external-most luminous surface 102 of the lighting device 104… be equal to 0.05 mW/cm2… 1.00 mW/cm2”, [0065]), wherein providing the light causes the one or more viruses to be inactivated, and wherein the one or more viruses are inactivated without using an exogenous photosensitizer to cause inactivation of the one or more lipid-enveloped viruses ([0064], and title of Hawkins is stated as “LIGHTING DEVICE THAT DEACTIVATES DANGEROUS PATHOGENS”, to which the pathogens include “viruses, bacteria, and fungi”, [0003]).
Hawkins, however, fails to teach a method of inactivating one or more lipid-enveloped viruses in an environment.
Kim teaches an LED lighting device (sterilizing device 1, Fig. 1) having a light emitter (20, Fig. 1) for emission of 405 nm visible light in order to sterilize “various microbes, bacteria, viruses, and the like, such as… Coronavirus” (see col. 6, lines 48-55).
Hawkins and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sterilizing surfaces/environments with visible light at about 405 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of inactivating pathogens in an environment via a 405 nm light source as taught by Hawkins by incorporating a method to not only inactivate pathogens, but also a lipid-enveloped virus (e.g., coronavirus) within an environment as taught by Kim in order to provide a sterilizing effect to an abundance of pathogens, lipid-enveloped viruses included (Kim, col. 6, lines 48-55).
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758